Greater Sage-GrouseIdaho Department of Fish and Game

gA Landscape Species and Its Habitat

Steven T. KnickUSGS Forest and RangelandEcosystem Science Center

John W ConnellyJohn W. ConnellyIdaho Department of Fish and Game

e ©

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Pho

to: T

erry

Ste

ele

Greater Sage-GrouseGreater Sage-GrouseWhy is conservation so challenging?

Broad range-wide distribution Diversity of sagebrush environmentsy g

– Complex dynamics Wide variety of system stressors Multiple land ownerships

– Public lands managed for multiple use – Not all lands are equal

Presentation Outline Greater Sage-Grouse populations Sagebrush dynamics Sagebrush dynamics Conservation implications and conclusions

Greater Sage-GrouseGreater Sage-GrousePopulation biology

Long-lived Low reproductive rateLow reproductive rate Large annual ranges

– A landscape speciesA landscape species Monitored by lek surveys

Sage-Grouse Lek

lek surveys

Habitat NeedsHabitat NeedsSpecialists on sagebrush

Spring and breeding– Food– Cover– Nesting

• Early brood-rearing

Winter100% f th di t– 100% of the diet

• Sagebrush leaves and buds• Gain weight over winterg

High Interest Chapters Hunting – Harvest strategy

Predation – Little information to suggest broad concern

Genetics – Most populations genetically similar WA and Mono Lake are exceptions

Disease – West Nile virus managed by reducing mosquitoes Disease – West Nile virus managed by reducing mosquitoes

Population AnalysisSage-Grouse Management Zones

y

ColumbiaBasin

AnalysisAll Management Zones

Great Plains

g30 of 41 PopulationsData sets

reviewed and editedStandard procedures

NorthernGreatBasin

WyomingBasin

S h G

Snake RiverPlain

Standard procedures

ColoradoPlateau

Southern GreatBasin

Population AnalysisPopulation AnalysisResults

Average lek size Rate of changeRate of change Dynamics

– PopulationsPopulations– Management Zones

Major FindingsMajor FindingsPopulations

In 2007 - 88,816 male grouse counted on 5,042 leksleks Lek size declined for 71% of populations Growth rate declined for 77% of populations

Major FindingsMajor FindingsPopulation analysis

Carrying capacity44% of cases included a declining carrying capacity– 44% of cases included a declining carrying capacity –1.8% to –11.6% per year

PopulationsPopulations– Number of males likely reduced to 45,000 (50% of current

levels) within 30 years– High (>90%) probability that sage-grouse will remain

>30,000 males range wide for the next 30 years

Wyoming BasinWyoming BasinManagement Zone

200,000

250,000

300

350

n

150,000

200,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Perc

ent o

f 200

3 po

pula

tion

50,000

100,0001964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Year

01965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Mi i N f M l 95% C fid I t lMinimum No. of Males 95% Confidence Interval

Population Reconstructionb. Northern Montana 

30000

35000

15000

20000

25000

0

5000

10000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

c. Powder River Basin 

200000

Minimum No. of Males Lower 90% CL Upper 90% CL

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Stable to increasing

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20101965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Minimum No. of Males Lower 90% CL Upper 90% CL

Decreasing

Population LossPopulation LossTop variables discriminating between occupied and extirpated

rangesranges

Variable RankCumulative effects 1

Sagebrush area 2Sagebrush area Land ownership/developmentDistance to vertical

234Distance to vertical

towers/transmission lines4

SagebrushSagebrushPrimary limitations to conservation

Invasive plant species and altered fire Land use and the “human footprint”Land use and the human footprint Climate change

±Probability of

Cheatgrass Occurrence

Low1±

Geographic

Low

High

2

3

gSubdivisions

1. Columbia Basin2. Snake River Plain3. Northern Great

Basin3

State/Province Boundaries

Basin4. Southern Great

Basin

4

Boundaries

0 1 00 2 005 0

K ilo m e te rs

SagebrushSagebrushLand use - agriculture

SagebrushSagebrushLand use - energy development

SagebrushSagebrushLand use

AgricultureConservation Reserve ProgramHuman population growthp p gUrbanizationInfrastructure (roads, powerlines, towers)Recreation and OHV useLivestock grazing and managementEnergy development (Oil and gas; wind; geothermal)Energy development (Oil and gas; wind; geothermal)Military training

Conservation Implications

Connectivity analysis Core areasCore areas Climate change

± NGreater Sage-Grouse

Historical RangeCurrent Range

0 30 0 6 001 50K ilo m ete rsK ilo m ete rs

Connectivity Analysisy yImportance

± Least

Greatest

State/Province Boundaries

0 200 400100 km

Sage-Grouse and EnergySage-Grouse and EnergyCore areas

Potential

HighHigh

HighLow

Sage-Grouse

PotentialEnergy

Development

LowLow

LowHigh

SagebrushSagebrushClimate change

Increased CO2Increased temperatureIncreased extreme weather eventsWarmer wintersWarmer wintersEarlier onset of springDecreased summer precipitation

Conclusions

Sage-grouse populations reduced Immediate stressors on sagebrush are invasive plant Immediate stressors on sagebrush are invasive plant

species, fire, human footprint Connectivity and core areas concepts delineating highConnectivity and core areas concepts delineating high

priority areas for conservation and restoration Climate change

History and our current use of the vast landscapes dominated by sagebrush can tell us much about land use, priorities, values, and resource management. The future will tell others about the effectiveness of conservation actions we implement today.

(Knick and Connelly, Introduction)

Acknowledgments U.S. Geological Survey Idaho Department of Fish and Game Western Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies

– Western Sharp-Tailed and Sage-Grouse Technical Committee Cooper Ornithological Society, Studies in Avian Biologyp g y gy

n Federal Agency

State Agency

University NGO

A h 38 3 6 6Authors 38 3 6 6 5

Reviewers 61 8 8 18 5

T h a n k Y o u